David Davis escaped censure from MPs after the Brexit committee split on party lines over whether to formally criticise him, following a chaotic appearance in which he said that dozens of economic impact assesssments he had been told to publish did not, in fact, exist.

Ten Conservative MPs and one DUP MP voted that Davis was not in contempt of parliament, hours after the Brexit secretary said that there had been “no systematic impact assessment” of leaving the EU. Eight opposition MPs voted against.

Sector-by-sector Brexit impact forecasts do not exist, says David Davis

Read more

MPs on the committee asked Davies how he could say there was no detailed information to publish, even though he had talked previously about the 58 studies existing “in excruciating detail”.

In a sometimes gruelling appearance before the Brexit select committee Davis said there had been “no systematic impact assessment” of leaving the EU, having talked previously about such apparent studies existing “in excruciating detail”. Davis insisted he had been misunderstood, saying the only work undertaken comprised broad surveys of various parts of the economy, none of which included any forecasts of how Brexit might affect them.

At the hearing the committee chair, Labour’s Hilary Benn, had asked Davis if the government had carried out any forecasts on the possible impact of Brexit on the automotive, aerospace or financial services sectors. “The answer’s going to be no to all of them,” Davis replied.

His comments prompted incredulity from some members, including Benn, who said it was “quite extraordinary” to be told that no impact assessments had been carried out.

Benn asked how the assessments could not exist when the Brexit secretary had previously told MPs in September last year there were sectoral analyses for “about 50 cross-cutting sectors, [for] what is going to happen to them”.

Davis insisted he had never been misleading, and that the studies undertaken had never been intended as a quantitative analysis of how various parts of the economy could be affected by Brexit, in part as there were too many variables for this to be feasible.

“Do not draw the conclusion that because you use the word impact, you have written an impact assessment,” he said.

Another Labour MP, Seema Malhotra, the member for Feltham and Heston, called Davis’s admission a “dereliction of duty”. After the hearing, the Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas and the former Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he should resign as a minister.

In a TV interview in June, Davis had he said nearly 60 sector analyses had been completed. In October he told the Brexit committee that Theresa May had read summaries of impact assessments, which he said went into “excruciating detail”.

That month, the Commons demanded the Brexit department release the 58 impact assessments, passed unanimously after Conservative MPs took no part. Davis then said the information did not exist in this form.

Eventually, following complaints, MPs were eventually handed two files containing 850 pages of mainly background “sectoral analyses” of various parts of the economy. Many said this was not sufficient to comply with parliament’s request.

Speaking on Wednesday, Davis told the committee that impact assessments would be done, but “a little closer to the negotiating timetable”.

“We will at some stage, and some of this has been initiated, do the best we can to quantify the effect of different negotiating outcomes as we come up to them,” he said.

Asked later by Benn whether there had been any economic assessment of the impact of leaving the customs union, he replied: “Not a formal, quantitative one.”

Davis also said government plans for the possibility of leaving the EU without a trade deal did not include any impact assessment. The contingency planning included proposals for areas like customs and aviation, but “don’t have numbers attached to them” and so didn’t constitute a forecast, he said.

David Davis is bluffing on Brexit. And now it’s clear for all to see | Rafael Behr

Read more

The revelations prompted calls in the Commons for the Speaker, John Bercow, to examine whether the Brexit secretary was in contempt of parliament for not handing over all the information he could. Raising a point of order, the SNP’s Pete Wishart said: “The government have singularly failed to meet the requirements of that binding vote in the house six weeks ago and must surely be in contempt.”

Bercow said he would discharge his responsibilities, but stressed any action would depend on the view of the Brexit committee.

However, Chuka Umunna, a pro-remain Labour MP who is not on the Brexit committee, said later he had written to the Bercow, asking for a fresh investigation into whether Davis had misled the Commons over the assessments.